Easy Zucchini Parmesan in the Kitchen

Ingredients

Line a cookie sheet with aluminum foil, then coat with some cooking
spray. Place the zucchini slices out on the pan, then spritz with them
with the butter spray. Sprinkle on the parmesan cheese and then pop it
in the oven. Broil for a few minutes - until the cheese starts to
brown. Enjoy it while it's warm!

Make a larger batch for a delicious and healthy side dish for any meal! Your family will love it!

When Matea converted to Islam in December 2013 she looked forward to
joining the life of her local mosques here. Today Matea, like many
Muslim women, is disillusioned."When I first converted I wanted to be part of the mosque
environment. But I went to mosques and what I found was sort of an
unwelcome environment for women," she told Women's eNews during a
discussion organized last week by Women in Islam, a New York-based
organization working to empower Muslim women through knowledge and
practice of Islam.Matea didn't want her full name published."The spaces are separated, there are different rooms and sometimes it
was even in the basement," Matea continued. "And as a convert, it feels
very strange to you. I used to go to church and everybody is part of
the same community. You can see the preacher. You can hear the sermon
very well."Momentum is building to improve Muslim women's prayer spaces inside
mosques. Last year, Hind Makki, a resident of Chicago who describes
herself as an interfaith educator and community activist, launched the Side Entrance project
on Tumblr and Facebook, inviting people from around the world to share
photos of the mosques they attend and show the differences between male
and female prayer areas."We show the beautiful, the adequate and the pathetic," says the Side Entrance's introduction on Tumblr.Makki hopes the Side Entrance website will help more Muslim men
realize the terrible state of Muslim women's prayer spaces and encourage
them to join the women's call for action and change.

In one way or another, all religions find a way to oppress women. I'm a Catholic, believe me, I know. The best nun in the world is still lower in the hierarchy than the worst priest.

Friday, April 4, 2014. Chaos and violence continue, Nouri continues
killing civilians in Falluja, the Guardian calls him a 'front runner'
because they're so useless, the State Dept -- primarily under Hillary
Clinton -- lost billions, the press seems to be unaware that the
Hillary-led State Dept stonewalled Congress, Stuart Bowen and others in
their bid to be non-transparent about Iraq, and much more.

Will today be remembered as the day Iraq War supporter Hillary Clinton's presidential dreams vanished?

The Office of Inspector General, in a March 20 "management alert" to department leaders, said the department has failed to provide all or some of the files for $6 billion worth of contracts in the last six years."The failure to maintain contract files adequately creates
significant financial risk and demonstrates a lack of internal control
over the Department's contract actions," the memo said.

Adam Kredo (Free Beacon) noted, "The State Department misplaced and
lost some $6 billion due to the improper filing of contracts during the
past six years, mainly during the tenure of former Secretary of State
Hilary Clinton, according to a newly released Inspector General report."

But nobody appeared to know what they had.

Let's first note how this plays out in a campaign. The obvious question
is one of competency as in, "Can she handle the presidency when she
couldn't even handle the State Dept budget?"

It needs to be noted that Hillary has spent her year-plus since
resigning as Secretary of State with only one public goal: To present
herself baddest bitch in the whole damn town.

She's screamed for war, compared people to Hitler -- Let's just stop for
a moment on that. How do you become president when you're screaming
"Hitler!" at someone?

At any rate, she's attempted to prove just how tough she is -- as if anyone ever doubted she could be cold blooded or ruthless.

And now this comes up.

How is John Kerry better Secretary of State than Hillary Clinton?

There are a lot of variables which go to opinion. And there are some
people who would argue that neither are good in their positions.

But these are appointments, these people are not elected, they are
appointed. Since the American people had no say in the process --
despite paying their salaries -- it is especially important that they do
their jobs and do the jobs professionally. In a democracy, you're
supposed to have an open government.

Does Hillary grasp that?

John Kerry did.

Let's drop back to the April 17, 2013 snapshot, where we reported on that day's House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing:

Chair Ed Royce: I'd also like to call your attention to the State
Department's Inspector General's Office. This is the key independent
office looking at waste and fraud. Mr. Secretary, as of today, there
has been no permanent State Department Inspector General for over five
years. This includes President Obama's entire first term. The
Committee raised this issue in a bi-partisan letter sent to you in
February and we would like to see an immediate appointment to this
position.Secretary John Kerry: On the IG, you're absolutely correct. We're
-- we're trying to fill a number of positions right now, the IG among
them. The greatest difficulty that I'm finding now that I'm on the
other side of the fence is frankly the vetting process. And I've got
some folks that I selected way back in February when I first came in and
it's now April and I'm still waiting for the vetting to move. I've
talked to the White House. They're totally on board. They're trying to
get it moved. So I hope that within a very short span of time, you're
going to see these slots filled. They need to be. And that's just the
bottom line. It's important and I commit to you, we will.Chair Ed Royce: I think this is the longest gap that we've had in
the history of this position. So if you could talk to the President
about this in short order, we would very much appreciate it. Secretary John Kerry: I don't need to talk to the President, we're
going to get this done. We know it and we're trying to get the right
people. Matching person to task and also clearing all the other
hurdles, as I am finding, is not as easy as one always thinks. But
we'll get it done.

Kerry kept his word. As Karen DeYoung (Washington Post) reported yesterday, "The warning was the second 'management alert' in State Department
history, both issued by new Inspector General Steve Linick. Linick took
over the job in late September, after it had been vacant for nearly six
years."

For Hillary's entire four years as Secretary of State, she didn't feel
she need to be accountable. She wasn't about to 'subject' herself to
oversight.

She proved to be hostile to it.

It's this sort of thing that made many hate her -- yes, hate -- as First
Lady. She thought she could do whatever she wanted with, for example,
health care and do it away from the public eye and from any oversight.
She had the chance, as Secretary of State, to embrace democracy and she
chose not to.

$6 billion is unaccounted for and that's largely from her four years.

John Kerry only had to be asked once publicly by Congress about the IG.
And he didn't have to puzzle it. He didn't have to take the question
for the record. He immediately agreed that an IG was necessary and that
there would be someone appointed to that position and that they were
already working on it.

But for her entire four year term as Secretary of State, Hillary avoided
oversight, she subverted democracy and, in the process, she appears to
be unable to account for billions of US taxpayer dollars.

That doesn't say "presidential." And it means "Travelgate" and all the
other scandals or 'scandals' (I didn't think there was anything there
beneath the smoke) come back to haunt her. Secretary of State was
supposed to be the prestige position that propelled Hillary to a new
level but that didn't happen.

A comment on DeYoung's article is confusing:

sleeve

7:11 AM CST

Once
again paying the price for the corrupted GOP refusing to approve needed
vital personnel to protect us from the vast network of fraud establish
under W went he rented out our government functions to his highest
campaign contributors. W belongs in a cage at The Hague.

Is Sleeve stating that the money that's missing/unaccounted for from 2008 to present is Republicans' fault?

If so, is Sleeve saying ("refusing to approve needed vital personnel")
that the Republicans in the Senate must have blocked a nomination for
the State Dept IG?

If that's what's Sleeve's saying, Sleeve is wrong.

There was no nominee.

And Republicans in Congress joined with Democrats in raising the issue
in public letters to the White House and Republicans in the House tended
to raise this issue repeatedly.

December 7, 2011 we reported on the House Oversight and Government Reform's National Security Subcommittee hearing.

Subcommittee Chair Jason Chaffetz: Before recognizing Ranking
Member [John] Tierney, I'd like to note that the Defense Dept, State
Dept, USAID and SIGAR will not have IGs in January. In May of this
year, I wrote the President asking him to move without delay to appoint
replacements. That letter was signed by Senators [Joe] Lieberman,
[Susan] Collins, [Claire] McCaskill and [Rob] Portman, as well as [House
Oversight Committee] Chairman [Darrell] Issa and Ranking Member
[Elijah] Cummings and Ranking Member Tierney. I'd like to place a copy
of htis record into the record. Without objection, so ordered. To my
knowledge, the President has yet to nominate any of these replacements,
nor has he responded to this letter. I find that totally unacceptable.
This is a massive, massive effort. It's going to take some leadership
from the White House. These jobs cannot and will not be done if the
president fails to make these appointments. Upon taking office,
President Obama promised that his administration would be "the most open
and transparent in history." You cannot achieve transparency without
inspectors general. Again, I urge President Obama and the Senate to
nominate and confirm inspectors general to fill these vacancies and
without delay.

So don't blame Republicans or Democrats in Congress for what Hillary did as Secretary of State. Let's note

Speical Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction Stuart Bowen from that same hearing:

SIGIR
Stuart Bowen: First, I am concerned about maintaining SIGIR's ability
to get the information we need to complete ongoing audits and
investigations and to continue to provide the kind of comprehensive
Quarterly Report coverage that the Congress has come to expect from us.
The State Department recently instituted a new bureaucratic process,
requiring the channeling of information that we request from the Embassy
through Foggy Bottom offices. This process inevitably will cause
delays, impede our capacity to deal directly with the individuals in
Iraq responsible for providing the necessary data, and thus reduce our
responsiveness. Symptomatic of this bureaucratic development, one of my
investigators, working jointly with the FBI on a criminal case, recently
was refused information by the State Department regarding a potential
subject (who is a State employee). State directed my investigator to use
the "audit process" to obtain this investigative information. Worse,
he was challenged as to whether the information, which he had requested
in good faith, was even related to "reconstruction funding." This
development is just the latest quandary in a predicament-filled year,
during which the State Department has repeatedly raised fallacious
objections to varying SIGIR requests. I thank the Chairman and Ranking
Member -- and the full Committee's leadership -- for their steadfast
support of our oversight mission; but these recent issues underscore
the reality of the continuing oversight challenges that confront us.

Attending hearings on Iraq and what the State Dept was doing there was
very frustrating and not just for me watching the interaction but for
members of Congress. As we have noted repeatedly since the State Dept
took over the US mission in Iraq in October of 2011, they did so with
no transparency. They attempted to circumvent Stuart Bowen and his
office (which is no more today even though the State Dept continues to
have a budget of approximately a billion each year just on Iraq) and
they refused to inform his office or the Congress what they were doing.

How bad was it?

For one example, let's drop back to the December 1, 2011 snapshot which
covered the November 30th hearing of the House Foreign Affairs
Subcommittee on the Middle East ans South Asia. The State Dept was
represented by Brooke Darby.

US House Rep Gerald Connolly: Madame Deputy
Assistant Secretary, welcome. Is it your testimony here today that the
State Dept is fully committed to transparency and accountability with
respect to any and all programs it has oversight and responsibility for
in Iraq?

Brooke
Darby: We take our responsibility for accountability and cooperation
with all of the audit entities, with Congress very, very seriously.

US
House Rep Gerald Connolly: No, ma'am, that was not my question. Is it
your testimony that you're fully committed to transparency and
accountability with respect to those responsibilities?

Brooke Darby: We are absolutely committed to accountability.

US House Rep Gerald Connolly: Full accountability? Full transparency and accountability?

Brooke Darby: I'm not sure -- I'm not sure how you define that so . . .

US
House Rep Gerald Connolly: Well I guess I'm not sure why you avoid the
word. That was my question and you've ducked it three times. Are we
or are we not, is the State Dept committed to full transparency and
accountability to the tax payers in the United States and the people who
served in Iraq or not?

Brooke
Darby: We absolutely are accountable to the tax payers, to our
Congress and to all of the oversight bodies who are looking into how we
are spending our dollars, whether our programs are achieving success.
We are absolutely --

US House Rep Gerald Connolly: Alright. I'll sort of take that as a commitment.

This was characteristic of Hillary's tenure as Secretary of State. The
Congress was unable to get answers -- especially ahead of the transfer
of Iraq from a DoD-led mission to a State Dept-led one and in all the
time that followed that transfer.

Six billion is unaccounted for. And the bulk of it is from Hillary's
term as Secretary of State. She came in with no IG and she demanded no
IG. She served four years without any check or oversight. And she and
her people stonewalled Congress and any body or official attempting to
provide oversight.

The missing money is a mark against her and against what she tries to
pass off as "leadership." No oversight, no accountability, that's not
leadership in a democracy.

The issue was raised at today's State Dept press briefing:QUESTION: Marie, do you have any comment on the OIG report that was made public today on the $6 billion?MS. HARF: I do. Just give me one second. Well, reports that
there is a $6 billion that can’t be accounted for are grossly
inaccurate. The OIG’s report noted that there were a number of
incomplete files for our contracts and that these contracts’ cumulative
value was about 6 billion. As highlighted in our response to the OIG,
this is an issue of which the Department is aware and is taking steps to
remedy. It’s not an accounting issue. I think it’s more like a
bureaucratic issue. But it’s not that we’ve lost $6 billion, basically.On March 20th, our new Inspector General did issue a
management alert on contract file management deficiencies. The Bureau of
Administration responded with a plan to address their three
recommendation. Those are all posted on the IG’s web page now.QUESTION: So how much money can you not account for if it’s not 6 billion?MS. HARF: I have no idea.QUESTION: But whatever amount it is, it’s --MS. HARF: I think we try to account for all of our money.QUESTION: But it’s way less than 6 billion? I mean, you said it was grossly inflated.MS. HARF: Grossly inaccurate. Uh-huh.QUESTION: Okay. So do – you must have --QUESTION: What’s a rounded-up figure --MS. HARF: I’m not – no --QUESTION: You must have an estimate of what it is if you have an understanding --MS. HARF: It’s my understanding that it’s not an accounting
issue. It’s not that we can’t account for money. So I don’t – I’m not
sure that there’s any money that we can’t account for.QUESTION: So how is it grossly inaccurate, then?MS. HARF: Because it’s not that there’s $6 billion we can’t account for. They said there were incomplete files --QUESTION: Right.MS. HARF: -- and that the files were – their cumulative value
for those contracts was about $6 billion. So it’s a filing issue. It’s
not a “we lost money” issue.QUESTION: So you’re sure that you know where all that money is even though you acknowledge that the files are not complete?MS. HARF: I – that’s my understanding, yes. But again, all of this is posted on the IG’s website in much more detail.QUESTION: But --MS. HARF: I don’t have the $6 billion.QUESTION: Yeah. I mean, I just – (laughter) – it sounds like
it may be more of a distinction without a difference, saying it’s an
accounting error, like maybe --MS. HARF: No, because the notion that we can’t find $6
billion, right, would mean that it’s an accounting issue, that somehow
we lost money that – you can understand why when people hear that they
think that it means we’ve lost $6 billion. That’s my understanding that
that’s not the case.QUESTION: Yes, please. I mean, regarding this IG issue, it’s like every other day something is coming out of --MS. HARF: IG’s been very busy, apparently.QUESTION: Yeah. I mean, because there was no IG before, no five years.MS. HARF: We have a new IG, yep.QUESTION: Yeah, it came on September. Yeah. I mean, I’m trying
to figure out – I mean, when he’s like – when you say grossly and
inaccurate, does he presenting these things with information or just
like a number?MS. HARF: Yeah. So the way the IG works in general – and I
don’t have the details about their methodology here – is they are
independent and they undertake independent reviews, some I understand
that are done just routinely, some I think are in response to people
submitting things to them. And in general, after the IG does a draft
report they submit it to either the post overseas or the office here or
the bureau that deals with it so they can have a chance to review it and
comment on it and to begin implementing recommendations, if there are
any that they think are helpful. So there’s a process here. Then they
eventually release the final report that sometimes takes into account
comments, sometimes they disagree. We have a variety of ways to respond.QUESTION: The reason I am asking because these things are
related more about overseas activities and contracts. Does the State
Department officially – when you say grossly inaccurate, are you going
to say what is accurate?

MS. HARF: Yes. And as I said, our response and the entire
report is up on the IG’s website. I’m happy to dig into it a little bit
more. But yes, we do. I mean, that’s why we give responses and they’re
published.

I don't know that State Dept spokesperson Marie Harf should have treated the issue so lightly.

It's really not a good public visual for the State Dept to be seen by the public as yucking it up over missing money.

That said, it's Hillary's problem. The money can be accounted for
tomorrow, it doesn't matter now. It's underscored the failures of her
leadership and the damage done by her refusing the oversight that is
supposed to come with the job in a democracy.

Again, it's Hillary's problem and Marie Harf's not part of Hillary's
crew so she doesn't have to worry but it still doesn't create a good
visual for the public when the State Dept spokesperson appears to have
'fun' with the topic of billions of missing taxpayer dollars.

Rep David Harris proposed the bill:Synopsis As Introduced
Urges the United States Department of State to rescind its decision
to transfer artifacts seized from Iraq's Jewish community by Saddam
Hussein's regime back to the Iraqi government.

House Committee Amendment No. 1Replaces
everything after the heading with similar language. States the proper
name of the collection of artifacts held by the Iraqi government. Adds
language concerning resolutions passed by the United States House of
Representatives and Senate regarding the artifacts and their return to
Iraq. Urges the United States Department of State to renegotiate with
the Government of Iraq the provisions of the original agreement in order
to ensure that the Iraqi Jewish Archive collection be kept in a
location accessible to scholars, Iraqi Jews, and their descendants where
its long-term preservation and care can be guaranteed.

November 13th,
the State Dept's Brett McGurk appeared before the House Foreign Affairs
Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa. We'll note Chair
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen explaining the archives from that hearing.

Chair Ileana Ros-Lehtinen: And finally, a
letter to Secretary Kerry regarding the return of Iraqi-Jewish community
artifacts that are now on display at The National Archives. In 2003,
US and coalition forces found a trove of Iraqi-Jewish cultural
artifacts being warehoused in the basement of Saddam Hussein's secret
police headquarters. And the US subsequently brought them here, to The
National Archives, for restoration, preservation and display; however,
these artifacts are scheduled to be returned to Iraq where the
government will claim possession of these artifacts which were unjustly
taken from the Iraqi-Jewish community. The US government must not
return those stolen treasures to the Iraqi government but instead should
facilitate their return to their rightful owners or descendants.
Therefore, on behalf of me, Congressman Steve Israel and over 40 of our
House colleagues, we ask you, Deputy Secretary McGurk, to personally
deliver this letter to Secretary Kerry and the Dept of State ensures
that the Iraqi-Jewish community does not get robbed again of its
collective memory and treasures.

The White House intends
to hand the archives over to the Iraqi government in June. As that
moment looms ever closer, others, such as Illinois state Rep David
Harris, step forward to make a case for the artifacts to be returned to
their rightful owners. Mara Ruff (Jewish United Fund) reports:

Rep. Harris feels strongly on this issue, both on a personal and professional level."Having served in Iraq for 14 months, I was concerned about what would
happen to the artifacts if they were returned to the Iraqi government,"
he said. "The decision to return them should be renegotiated so that the
artifacts are returned to the original Jewish owners, if possible, and
if that is not possible, then returned to the Jewish community where
they would be respected and preserved."With this resolution, Harris hopes the Illinois General Assembly's
support will help influence the appropriate government authorities to
reconsider and keep the Iraqi Jewish Archives in a location that is
accessible to scholars and Iraqi Jews around the world.

Handing the collection over to Nouri's government is nonsense. This is the property of Iraqi Jews. Rebecca Shimoni Stoil (Times of Israel) explains,
"The archive is a collection of Jewish religious items and documents
which were seized from Iraq’s persecuted Jewish community in the 1970s
and 1980s, under Saddam Hussein’s regime. It contains more than 2,700
books, dating back as early as the 16th century." Stolen property is
not returned to the thieves, it's returned to the rightful owners. Add
in that Nouri's Iraq has run off all but a handful of Jews and there's
no reason in the world -- certainly no legal or ethical reason -- for
the artifacts to be handed over to the Iraqi government.

Nouri refused to protect the Jewish community in Iraq. He's also
refused to protect the Christian community in Iraq which is why so many
have become external and internal refugees. Alex Newman (The New American) observed last December, " Before the U.S. government imposed so-called “democracy” on Iraq,
estimates suggested there were as many as 1.5 million Christians
throughout the diverse country. They had survived centuries of
invasions, persecution, and more — but in many respects, the community
was still thriving. Today, experts and Christian leaders suggest the
number of Christians still in Iraq is somewhere closer to 200,000. Many
of those would leave if they could."

The internal Christian refugees have largely migrated north. The October 31, 2010 attack on Baghdad's Our Lady of Salvation Church
led many Baghdad Christians to flee. That wasn't the only or even the
last attack on Baghdad's Christian community but it was an attack that
shocked many. When Iraqis flee for safety, they don't sell the home
first. So homes are left abandoned.

AFP reports
today that "gangs claiming ties to powerful militias" are grabbing the
empty homes in Baghdad and that the owners are left with little
recourse:The US State Department said in its 2013 human rights report that
"delays and corruption prevented the (Iraqi) government from effectively
adjudicating property restitution claims".It added, citing local
human rights NGOs, that "the government's inability to resolve claims
disproportionately affected Christian communities".

KRG President Massoud Barzani has
increased his international profile, for over a year now we've noted
there's a good chance he will become the next president of Iraq. Shafaq News reports an expected -- not surprising -- development, "President of the Iraqi National Congress , Ahmed al-Chalabi
announced his support for the candidacy of Kurdistan Region's President ,
Massoud Barzani as the president of Iraq , considering him as a 'good' president."

On the topic of the next President of Iraq, Alsumaria reports
State of Law is having a hissy fit. MP Haider al-Abadi was sent out to
denounce the suggesting that Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi should be
president. al-Abadi fumes this is a conspiracy. Tareq remains Vice
President and remains outside of Iraq due to Nouri's efforts to have
Tareq sentenced to death.

That's the next president. Where's the current one? December 2012, Iraqi
President Jalal
Talabani suffered a stroke. The incident took place late on December
17, 2012 following Jalal's argument with Iraq's prime minister and chief thug Nouri al-Maliki (see the December 18, 2012 snapshot). Jalal was admitted to Baghdad's Medical Center Hospital. Thursday, December 20, 2012,
he was moved to Germany. He remains in Germany all this time later.

Mohammad Sabah (Al Mada) reports
that the Sadr bloc has expressed fear that Nouri may attempt to declare
a state of emergency and dissolve the Parliament with Jalal out of the
country still to avoid losing the election. Should that happen, not
only will Jalal and his family be the subject of scorn and hostility but
the PUK will suffer as well -- this after they already went from
leading party in the Kurdistan Regional Government to coming in third --
behind Barzani's KDP and the newly emergent Goran.

Moving over to the wimpy Guardian newspaper out of
England. They wanted everyone to stand up for them against the British
government but the cowards don't stand up for themselves. Nouri
al-Maliki sued them over reporting and won. The verdict was reversed on
appeal. Since then, the newspaper's Iraq reporting has been a joke and
reporters for the paper, like Martin Chulov, have done better work in
radio interviews than they've been allowed to do at the paper.

Date: 30 AprilNo of voters: 18 millionFrontrunner: Nuri al-MalikiFree and fair factor: 2Biggest anxiety: full-scale insurgency, spilling over from Syria, makes security parlous across much of the west of the countryWhat it means for the world:
country that cost so many lives appears to be backsliding towards
autocracy and instability, rendering democracy almost irrelevant. Would
further carnage trigger an American re-engagement?

How's Nouri the front runner? Based on 2013 parliamentary elections? I thought the press told us that was bad news for Nouri?

Based on his popularity now?

Nope, he's more unpopular than ever.

Because Shi'ites want to coalesce around him? Motada al-Sadr, just this
week, again declared Nouri shouldn't seek a third term. Wednesday, Al Arabiya News reported:Iraq’s Shiite leader Moqtada al-Sadr urged Prime Minister Nouri
al-Maliki on Wednesday not to run for a third term, accusing him of
terrorizing Sunnis so that they don’t go to the polls in the upcoming
April 30 general election.“I advise brother Maliki… brother
Maliki thinks he served Iraq, let him rest for four years, and see if
whoever comes next would serve better… if not let him come back after
four years, it is not a problem,” Sadr told reporters in Najaf, 60
kilometres south of Baghdad.

The Shiite leader, who had announced
his withdrawal from active politics, accused Maliki’s government of
“building a dictatorship” by excluding candidates from the parliamentary
elections.

And today Al Arabia News reports:Editor-in-chief of Al-Mada newspaper, Adnan Hussain, told Al Arabiya
News that Ahrar “is entering the upcoming elections with strength.” He
expects the Sadrists to keep their 40 parliament seats, particularly
since Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki, whom Sadr has described as a
“dictator,” is in a shaky position.“Maliki didn’t achieve anything in the past four years. On the contrary, the situation in Iraq has deteriorated,” said Hussain.Baghdad-based TV commentator Ahmad Al-Abyadh said he expects Ahrar to at
least consolidate its position or win about 45 seats in the upcoming
elections.

There's no reason to declare a Nouri a front runner. There's no factual basis for the claim.

Nouri is responsible for more deaths today. NINA notes
the military's continued shelling of residential neighborhoods in
Falluja -- this happens every day, this bombing -- has left 6 civilians
dead and nine more injured. But the Guardian won't report that, they're too damn busy cowering in fear.

Are the problems at Fort Hood unique or is it just a difference in scale?

Prysner: The scale is different because the base is so large.
The crisis in mental health treatment is endemic to the entire military.
Other bases, such as Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Fort Carson, Fort Bliss,
have come in the media spotlight after soldiers have helped expose
treatment on base.

It’s important to note that this suicide epidemic and crisis in
mental health care is no secret. For many years, the shocking rate of
suicides, mass PTSD diagnoses and scandals around mistreatment have been
made blatantly obvious to the Pentagon and Washington. They respond to
media pressure by just giving speeches about “supporting troops” and
“caring for veterans.” The fact is that this has been a real emergency situation for so, so
long. Our “leaders” have made very clear that they are either unwilling
or incapable of taking any meaningful action to address this horrific
crisis facing our community.